CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 asylum proceedings, the second complainant stressed that the police had visited their house on several occasions. Second, the Swiss authorities considered that the complainants’ statements contradicted each other. Thus, the first complainant alleged that after questioning him at the Ministry of the Interior, the police had continuously paid visits to their house and taken him to the police station for questioning and that they had been harassed for some two months. At the same time, the second complainant contended that the first complainant had never been questioned or taken to the police station on those occasions, due to his poor health, and that the police harassed them from December 2006 to approximately one month prior to their departure. Third, the Swiss authorities argued that if the first complainant had indeed been wanted by the police, he would not have been allowed to obtain a passport and leave the country. Fourth, although the Swiss authorities admitted that Tunisian nationals returning from a prolonged stay abroad were routinely questioned upon arrival, such measures were not of such intensity as to be relevant in terms of asylum law. The Swiss authorities concluded that the evidence provided by the complainants did not suffice to establish the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution in Tunisia. 2.6 The complaints further submit that the Swiss asylum authorities stated that their expulsion from Switzerland was reasonable, lawful and possible. First, the complainants had failed to prove that they had been subjected to State persecution in Tunisia and there were no reasons to believe that they would be subjected to torture or other treatment contrary to the Convention, should they return to Tunisia. Second, even if the first complainant suffered from latent tuberculosis, depression and hepatitis C, as confirmed by medical certificates, those diseases could well be treated in Tunisia, which has an excellent and accessible health-care system. 2.7 The complainants submit that, contrary to the State party’s contention, they would face real and imminent risk of being subjected to torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment in Tunisia. They submit that the Swiss authorities had not reviewed their case with due diligence, given that the decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 29 October 2010 mentioned a wrong date for their departure from the country and that the authorities ignored the new evidence presented, in particular the summons of 7 December 2006 with regard to both complainants and a summons of 23 January 2007 with regard to the first complainant. These documents corroborate the fact the Tunisian authorities have an important interest in controlling and possibly punishing the complainants, whom they suspect of being linked to Ennahda, and not merely because they have resided abroad for several years. 2.8 The complainants further submit that they clarified inconsistences in their statements in their appeal. In particular, they explained that the first complainant had not informed his spouse of the questioning at the police station for “cultural reasons” and because he intended to spare her from further sorrow. Furthermore, they stressed that they had travelled to Switzerland on fake passports, which they had obtained by bribing officials. They refer to the report of the Department of State of the United States of America, according to which corruption is on the rise in Tunisia.1 In addition, they did not leave Tunisia by air but crossed in a collective taxi into Libya. The complainants therefore contend that the fact that they were able to leave Tunisia does not mean that they are not wanted there. 2.9 The complainants argue that they would be arrested, if forcibly returned to Tunisia again. First, they were under police surveillance at the time of their departure and they had been warned not to leave the country. Second, the first complainant is indeed a supporter of Ennahda and attempted to establish contact with its representative in Switzerland, 1 4 Department of State, “2009 Country reports on human rights practices: Tunisia”, 11 March 2010.